147 
other marks of civilization among them ? A careful consideration 
of the case seems to leave us no other conclusion than that this 
form of Prehistoric Monotheism simply remains among them, 
in the midst of all their barbarism, as an indelible remnant of 
that higher aboriginal culture, from which in the course of ages 
they have so sadly degenerated. 
10. To show that I do not unduly press this argument, 
and that Sir John Lubbock really does enforce the necessity of 
idol-worship entering into a nation as a stage of religious 
belief, before morality is connected with religion, thereby ex- 
cluding all anterior possibility of a Monotheistic faith, let it be 
observed that, after describing the lowest or Atheistic stage, he 
goes on to speak, on page 242, of religion being “ greatly raised 
in importance ” by Fetichism ; afterwards, on page 248, he 
adds, “ The next stage in religious progress is that which may 
be called Totemism ;” he then says, on page 252, “ AsTotemism 
overlies Fetichism, so does Shamanism overlie Totemism 
and subsequently, on page 256, he tells us, “The worship of 
idols characterizes a somewhat higher stage of human develop- 
ment.” It is not till he has crept up to page 291 that he 
discovers that highest stage of all, when there enters belief in a 
“ Beneficent and J ust Being,” who connects Morality and Reli- 
gion. Hence, if words mean anything, the whole theory of 
Sir John Lubbock must stand or fall by the place which 
Prehistoric Monotheism occupies in the order of religious 
beliefs. I say prehistoric ; for if it were a matter of clear 
authentic history, there would be no dispute about it. The 
entire discussion consists in our fairly grappling with those 
loose and disjointed evidences which crop up here and there, 
either among those savage nations which have no history at all, 
or else among those anciently civilized nations which flourished 
before authentic history begins. 
11. Let us turn to this latter class, commencing with the 
ancient Chinese empire. Sir John Lubbock, quoting Astley, 
says : — 
It is observable that there is not to be found in the Chinese canonical 
books the least footstep of idolatrous worship, till the image of Fo was 
brought from China several ages after Confucius (p. 258). 
This is true. In proof of it I may mention that there exists 
in China a very ancient work, called Pokootoo , comprising six- 
teen volumes, which, though they contain several hundred 
pictures of jugs, vases, and bottles, of the Shang, Chow, and 
Han dynasties, comprehending a period of 1784 years b.c. 
(no small portion of them being intended for use on the altars), 
yet there is not found one vessel in that work with an idolatrous 
VOL. vi. N 
